Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44915 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded under the Instruction 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, this rule is 

categorically excluded, under figure 2–

1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, 

from further environmental 

documentation. An environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are available in 

the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends part 

165 of Title 33, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. From 8 p.m. until 11:59 p.m. (PDT) 

on August 2nd, 2008, a temporary 

section § 165.T13–054 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 165.T13–054 Safety Zone: Lake 

Washington, WA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: The waters within an area 

1000 feet radius centered on the point 

47°34′15′′ N, 122°16′10′′ W on Lake 

Washington, Washington. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR part 

165, subpart C, no vessel may enter, 

transit, moor, or anchor within this 

safety zone, except for vessels 

authorized by the Captain of the Port or 

his designated representatives. 

(c) Enforcement Period. From 8 p.m. 

until 11:59 p.m. on August 2nd, 2008 

unless sooner cancelled by the Captain 

of the Port. 

Dated: July 22, 2008. 

Stephen P. Metruck, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. E8–17618 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0336; FRL–8697–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving 

revisions to Idaho’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to 

open burning and crop residue disposal 

requirements and visible emissions. The 

Director of the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted a draft SIP revision to the 

EPA on April 15, 2008. The EPA 

proposed to approve this draft SIP 

revision on April 29, 2008, and stated 

that, if adopted by the State 

substantially unchanged from its current 

form, it would satisfy the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter the Act 

or CAA). 73 FR 23155. The Director of 

the IDEQ submitted a final SIP revision 

to the EPA on May 28, 2008. Based on 

EPA’s review of this final SIP revision, 

EPA’s analysis and review of the 2008 

draft SIP revision (73 FR 23155), and 

comments received by the EPA during 

the public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed approval of the draft SIP 

revision, the EPA is approving the final 

SIP revision submitted by the IDEQ on 

May 28, 2008, because it satisfies the 

requirements of the CAA. 

The Director of the IDEQ also 

submitted a SIP revision relating to 

open burning and crop residue disposal 

requirements on May 22, 2003, which 

the EPA approved on July 11, 2005 (70 

FR 39658). In a ruling issued on January 

30, 2007, and amended on May 29, 

2007, that approval was remanded and 

vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the 9th Circuit in Safe Air for Everyone 

v. USEPA, 475 F.3d 1096, amended 488 

F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007) (SAFE 

decision). In the EPA’s April 29, 2008, 

proposal discussed above, the EPA reproposed to approve the portion of the 

May 22, 2003, SIP revision that would 

not be changed by the draft SIP revision, 

if adopted, submitted on April 15, 2008. 

We are also finalizing our approval of 

this portion of the 2003 SIP revision 

because it satisfies the requirements of 

the Act and does not contravene the 

Court’s SAFE decision. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

September 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR–

2008–0336. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, (206) 553–6706, or by 

e-mail at deneen.donna@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Judicial Review. Under section 

307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of 

this final rule is available only by filing 

a petition for review in the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by 

September 30, 2008. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. Moreover, under CAA section 

307(b)(2), the requirements established 

by this final action may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought to enforce 

these requirements. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
44916 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final 2008 SIP Revision Request 

III. Comments Received During the EPA 

Public Comment Period 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The EPA is approving revisions to 

Idaho’s SIP relating to open burning and 

crop residue disposal requirements and 

to a provision addressing visible 

emissions. This final approval 

encompasses a revision relating to 

IDAPA 58.01.01.600–603, 606, 617–623, 

and 625, submitted recently by the IDEQ 

to the EPA on May 28, 2008, and 

referred to here as the ‘‘2008 SIP 

revision request.’’ This final approval 

also encompasses a portion of a revision 

request relating to IDAPA 58.01.01.604, 

607–610, 612, 613, 615 and 616 

submitted by the IDEQ to the EPA on 

May 22, 2003, and referred to here as 

the ‘‘2003 SIP revision request.’’

On May 22, 2003, Idaho submitted to 

the EPA a requested revision to its SIP 

relating to open burning and crop 

residue disposal requirements. This 

2003 SIP revision request contained a 

number of changes including editorial 

changes, the addition of a provision 

regarding the immediate abatement of 

open burning in emergencies, removal 

of a provision regarding discretionary 

approval of alternatives to open 

burning, and the addition of a provision 

to specify that crop residue burning was 

an allowable form of open burning. 

On July 11, 2005, the EPA approved 

Idaho’s 2003 SIP revision request, 

explaining that we considered it to be a 

clarification of Idaho’s prior SIP rather 

than a substantive amendment. 70 FR 

39658 and 70 FR 41963 (2005 SIP 

approval). A citizen’s group filed a 

petition for judicial review of our 2005 

SIP approval in the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the 9th Circuit, claiming 

that the approval relaxed the existing 

SIP and that we were incorrect in 

viewing the 2003 SIP revision request as 

a clarification of the prior SIP. (Safe Air 

for Everyone v. USEPA, 475 F.3d 1096, 

amended 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir 2007)). 

On January 30, 2007 (as amended on 

May 29, 2007), the Court granted the 

petition for review, vacated the 2005 SIP 

approval, and remanded the matter to 

the EPA. 

Subsequent to the remand, Idaho 

initiated a negotiated process to revise 

the challenged portions of the 2003 SIP 

revision request. This negotiated 

process included discussions with 

representatives of the State, the IDEQ, 

the Idaho State Department of 

Agriculture (ISDA), Safe Air For 

Everyone (SAFE), numerous agricultural 

organizations, and farmers who burn 

crop residue. As a result of the 

negotiations, the State has revised its 

approach to the open burning of crop 

residue, enacted new legislation 

addressing the practice, and developed 

rules for submission to the EPA. 

On April 15, 2008, Idaho submitted a 

draft SIP revision containing the state’s 

revised draft rules (the 2008 draft SIP 

revision request) and a request for 

parallel processing. The EPA proposed 

approval of the 2008 draft SIP revision 

request on April 29, 2008 (73 FR 23155), 

and explained in its discussion of 

parallel processing that it may take final 

action to approve a SIP revision request 

if the final version of the adopted state 

submission remains substantially 

unchanged from the submission on 

which the proposed approval 

rulemaking was based (73 FR 23156). In 

the same notice, the EPA proposed 

approval of the portion of the 2003 SIP 

revision request that would not be 

changed by the 2008 SIP revision 

request and that was not part of the 

federally approved Idaho SIP due to the 

Court’s remand and vacatur of our 2005 

SIP approval of the 2003 submission. 73 

FR 23155. The EPA did not parallel 

process the portion of the 2003 SIP 

revision request that was not changed 

by the 2008 draft SIP revision request or 

the 2008 SIP revision request because 

this portion of the 2003 SIP revision 

request had already been through the 

state public process, was adopted in its 

final form under state law, and was 

officially submitted to the EPA prior to 

our proposed approval on April 29, 

2008 (73 FR 23155). More discussion on 

the basis for our approval can be found 

at 73 FR 23155 (April 29, 2008). 

II. Final 2008 SIP Revision Request 

Idaho initiated a 30-day public 

comment period on the 2008 draft SIP 

revision request and, on May 2, 2008, 

held a public hearing on the request. 

Idaho subsequently prepared and 

adopted its final version of the 2008 SIP 

revision request, and on May 28, 2008, 

submitted the resulting 2008 SIP 

revision request to the EPA for final 

action and approval. 

In response to public comments 

during the state public comment period 

on its draft SIP revision request, the 

IDEQ made several clarifications which 

it included in the final 2008 SIP 

revision request submitted to EPA. For 

example, the IDEQ made several 

clarifications in response to comments 

from the Nez Perce Tribe to further 

clarify that the 2008 SIP revision request 

did not apply to crop residue burning 

on Indian Reservations in Idaho and to 

better clarify where certain technical 

information in the SIP, such as air 

monitoring data, pertained to the Nez 

Perce burn permit program and 

reservation lands rather than to the 

IDEQ and state lands. 

In response to comments from SAFE, 

the IDEQ clarified certain criteria for 

making burning decisions under IDAPA 

58.01.01.621.01 and how the IDEQ 

intends to implement those criteria. For 

example, the IDEQ confirmed that it 

will use the data from the continuous 

PM 2.5 monitors it operates in deciding 

whether to permit burning in 

accordance with IDAPA 

58.01.01.621.01. The IDEQ also 

confirmed that it would account for 

background smoke from wildfires and 

other burning, including emissions from 

wildfires and burning in tribal areas and 

in upwind states, in determining 

whether the levels that would prohibit 

burning in IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 are 

exceeded or predicted to be exceeded. 

With respect to the prohibition in 

IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01.f on authorizing 

burns if conditions are such that 

institutions with sensitive populations 

will be adversely impacted or when the 

plume is predicted to impact such 

institutions, the IDEQ clarified that the 

prohibition would apply to burning 

within three miles of institutions with 

sensitive populations when wind 

speeds exceed 12 miles and that, 

generally, the wind speed should be 

within 3 to 8 miles per hour. 

The EPA has reviewed the revisions 

and the submitted clarifications made 

by the IDEQ in the final 2008 SIP 

revision request and has determined 

that the 2008 SIP revision request 

remains substantially unchanged from 

the 2008 draft SIP revision request on 

which the EPA’s proposed approval was 

based. Based on our review and analysis 

of the 2008 draft SIP revision request 

and associated proposed EPA approval 

on April 29, 2008 (73 FR 23155), Idaho’s 

public comment period and hearing on 

the draft 2008 SIP revision request and 

IDEQ’s responses to comments 

submitted to EPA following the State’s 

administrative process, and the 

comments the EPA received during the 

public comment period on EPA’s 

proposed approval, we are taking final 

action to approve the 2008 SIP revision 

request. Moreover, based on these 

factors, we also conclude that approval 

of the SIP will not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44917 

1The current one hour action criteria under 

IDAPA 58.01.01.556 are an average of 80 μg/m3 for 

PM2.5 and an average of 385 μg/m3 for PM10. 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the Clean Air Act. 

III. Comments Received During the EPA 

Public Comment Period 

The following summarizes the issues 

raised in comments on the EPA’s 

proposed approval on April 29, 2008 (73 

FR 23155), and provides EPA’s 

responses to those issues. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

objected to agricultural field burning 

and asked the EPA not to approve the 

2008 SIP revision request, citing health 

and general air quality concerns. Some 

commenters suggested that, by allowing 

field burning, agribusinesses were 

getting special treatment and that 

economic concerns were outweighing 

health concerns. One commenter added 

that there are viable alternatives to 

burning and that the end consumer 

should bear the true costs of products 

they demand. 

Response: The EPA is aware of and 

continues to be concerned about the 

health and welfare impacts associated 

with crop residue burning in Idaho. In 

reviewing a SIP revision, EPA’s task is 

to determine whether the SIP revision 

complies with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. As discussed in the 

proposal, the burning of crop residue is 

allowed under the 2008 SIP revision 

request only after first obtaining a 

permit and burn approval from the 

IDEQ. IDAPA 58.01.01.618–621. The 

IDEQ may approve a burn only if the 

IDEQ determines that ambient air 

quality levels do not exceed seventy five 

percent of the level of any NAAQS on 

any day and are not projected to exceed 

such level over the next 24 hours. In 

addition, the IDEQ must determine that 

ambient air quality levels have not 

reached, and are not forecasted to reach 

and persist at, eighty percent of the one 

hour action criteria for particulate 

matter under IDAPA 58.01.01.556.1

58.01.01.621.01. In making these 

determinations, the IDEQ must consider 

the expected emissions from the 

proposed burn, the proximity of the 

proposed burn to other burns, the 

moisture content of the fuels, the 

acreage, crop type and other fuel 

characteristics, existing and expected 

meteorological conditions, the 

proximity of the proposed burn to 

institutions with sensitive populations, 

public roadways, and airports, and other 

relevant factors. IDAPA 58.01.01.621. 

Other restrictions on the burning of crop 

residue are contained in IDAPA 

58.01.01.617 through 623. 

In its response to comments during 

the state public comment process, the 

IDEQ made clear that it will consider 

the smoke contribution from other 

burns, including wildfires and 

prescribed burns, as well as the 

contribution from wildfires and other 

burning on Indian Reservations and 

upwind states in determining whether 

the conditions to allow burning are met. 

The IDEQ also made other important 

clarifications regarding how the IDEQ 

intends to implement those criteria. As 

explained in our proposal, the EPA has 

determined that the 2008 draft SIP 

revision request meets the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act, including section 

110(l) of the Act, which prohibits the 

Administrator from approving a SIP 

revision ‘‘if the revision would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of [the Act].’’ 73 FR 23155 

(April 29, 2008). Because the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP revision that complies with the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act and 

applicable Federal regulations (see 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a)) and 

the 2008 SIP revision request complies 

with those requirements, the EPA is 

taking final action to approve these 

revisions to the Idaho SIP. 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported EPA’s approval of the state’s 

draft 2008 SIP revision request or 

agricultural burning. Some thought that 

restricting field burning was unfair 

when other types of burning are 

allowed. Some raised concerns about 

the economic costs of not burning and 

losing grass fields and family farms, and 

in some cases claimed that burning 

improves air quality because it retains 

green spaces and prevents those areas 

from being developed. One commenter 

that supported burning also 

acknowledged that there are areas and 

instances where burning should be 

tightly monitored and controlled. Some 

thought burning should be tolerated 

because it occurs only for a short period 

during the year. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges 

these commenters’ support of the 

proposed rule. To the extent that the 

commenters are suggesting the 2008 SIP 

revision request is too restrictive, 

however, the EPA adds that it does not 

have the authority to add or remove 

restrictions in this rulemaking process 

and that, in its review of a SIP 

submission, the EPA’s role is to approve 

or disapprove state choices, based on 

whether they meet the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. In this case, the State of 

Idaho chose to adopt and submit 

provisions relating to the burning of 

crop residue. Accordingly, this final 

action merely approves the state 

program as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements. 

Comment: One commenter said that 

the EPA is rushing this decision without 

adequate time for proper study of the 

issue and consideration of a fee/ 

compensation program. The commenter 

further stated that growers should be 

required to pay sufficient compensation 

to those damaged by pollution from 

burning. 

Response: The Clean Air Act does not 

specifically require states to impose a 

fee or compensation requirement for 

burn programs. As discussed above, the 

EPA does not have the authority to add 

provisions to or to remove restrictions 

in the state program in this rulemaking 

process. In our review of a SIP 

submission, the EPA’s role is to approve 

or disapprove state choices, based on 

whether they meet the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. In any event, Idaho 

House Bill 557 requires a $2/acre fee be 

paid to the IDEQ prior to burning. See 

also IDAPA 58.01.01.620. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Clean Air 

Act does require that the state have 

adequate funding and staff to carry out 

the provisions of its SIP. The State of 

Idaho has stated that it has adequate 

funding and personnel to carry out the 

procedures identified in the 2008 SIP 

revision request and refers to funds 

appropriated by the Idaho Legislature, 

future receipts for crop residue burning, 

and an increase in staff to accomplish 

these tasks (Section 1.6.2 of the 2008 

SIP revision request). The EPA relies on 

these statements made by the IDEQ to 

conclude that the 2008 SIP revision 

request meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Clean Air Act. 

The EPA is unclear about what the 

commenter means by stating that the 

EPA is rushing this decision without 

‘‘proper study.’’ The EPA provided a 30 

day public comment opportunity on its 

proposed approval of the 2008 draft SIP 

revision request at 73 FR 23155 (April 

29, 2008). Based on the analysis and 

review in that proposal, consideration of 

public comments received by the EPA 

during the public comment period, and 

the final 2008 SIP revision request, the 

EPA concludes that the IDEQ’s 2008 SIP 

revision request meets the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the cumulative effects of smoke 

generated by fire of all sorts needed to 

be limited and that there is a need for 

more and better data about where the 

smoke from field burning actually goes. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
44918 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: In the 2008 SIP revision 

request, the IDEQ specifically 

acknowledged that regional 

coordination of burn decisions and 

smoke management is important in 

order to avoid unacceptable cumulative 

smoke impacts within and across 

jurisdictions. The IDEQ further 

explained that it would account for 

background smoke from wildfires and 

other burning, including emissions from 

wildfires and burning in tribal areas and 

in upwind states, in determining 

whether the levels that would prohibit 

burning in IDAPA 58.01.01.621.01 are 

exceeded or predicted to be exceeded. 

As noted above, we reviewed and 

analyzed the draft 2008 draft SIP 

revision request in our April 29, 2008, 

proposal and concluded that the draft 

2008 SIP revision request met the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

Comment: The Nez Perce Tribe stated 

that it supports the EPA’s approval of 

the revisions to Idaho’s SIP relating to 

the open burning and crop residue 

disposal requirements and visible 

emissions. The Tribe emphasized the 

importance of the EPA’s 

acknowledgment in the proposal that 

the Idaho SIP does not apply within the 

exterior boundaries of the 1863 Nez 

Perce Reservation. The Tribe also 

clarified that it was not a part of the 

negotiations that led to the development 

of the 2008 SIP revision request, but that 

the Tribe’s air quality program attended 

meetings in a technical assistance 

capacity. The Nez Perce Tribe stated 

that it is willing to continue to provide 

technical assistance to the IDEQ and 

looks forward to working with the IDEQ 

and the EPA on coordinating smoke 

management and burn decisions in the 

Clearwater airshed. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the 

Nez Perce Tribe’s support for the EPA’s 

approval of Idaho’s SIP revision request, 

as well as the Tribe’s continued 

technical support on air quality efforts. 

As stated in our proposal, the EPA’s 

approval of Idaho’s 2008 SIP revision 

request does not apply to Indian 

Country in Idaho, including all lands 

within the exterior boundaries of the 

Nez Perce Reservation as described in 

the 1863 Nez Perce Treaty. 73 FR 23162. 

The EPA also acknowledges the Nez 

Perce Tribe’s role in the development of 

Idaho’s 2008 SIP revision request. 

Comment: The Montana Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

stated that it supports Idaho’s final rules 

on crop residue burning and the IDEQ’s 

efforts to control the emissions from 

crop residue burning. In addition, the 

MDEQ commended the IDEQ’s efforts to 

establish coordination between crop 

residue burners and other burners to 

protect the NAAQS, noting that it 

particularly supports coordination with 

the Idaho/Montana Smoke Management 

Group. The MDEQ also noted its 

support of Idaho’s intent to further 

study interstate transport issues. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the 

MDEQ’s support of Idaho’s final rules 

relating to the open burning of crop 

residue and acknowledges the 

importance of coordination among 

states and tribes in protecting air 

quality. 

Comment: Safe Air For Everyone 

(SAFE) stated that, in responding to 

comments during State administrative 

proceedings on the 2008 draft SIP 

revision request, the IDEQ made 

important commitments regarding 

implementation of the burn permit 

program and that SAFE was relying on 

those commitments to make the SIP 

effective. SAFE continued that the IDEQ 

and SAFE had come to a mutual 

understanding and agreement that both 

the IDEQ’s Response to Comments 

(included in Appendix E of the 2008 SIP 

revision request) and Appendix J of the 

2008 SIP revision request are part of the 

SIP. SAFE requested that the EPA 

confirm that the IDEQ’s submitted 

Response to Comments and Appendix J 

are part of the federally approved SIP 

and that the criteria for burn 

determinations included in the IDEQ’s 

Response to Comments and Appendix J 

are requirements of the federally 

approved and federally enforceable SIP. 

With that understanding, SAFE stated 

that it fully supports the EPA’s approval 

of the Idaho 2008 SIP revision request. 

If the EPA does not recognize the 

criteria for burn determinations in the 

IDEQ’s Response to Comments and 

Appendix J as part of the federally 

approved and enforceable SIP, SAFE 

asserted that the Idaho SIP revision 

would not be lawful because it would 

not comply with the Clean Air Act and 

EPA’s implementing regulations for the 

reasons discussed in SAFE’s comments 

to the IDEQ during the state public 

comment period. In that event, SAFE 

requested that the EPA consider the 

comments SAFE submitted to the IDEQ 

during Idaho’s public comment period 

as objections to the EPA’s approval as 

well. 

Response: In a letter dated June 11, 

2008, the IDEQ stated that it had 

reviewed SAFE’s comment letter to 

EPA, and that the IDEQ had submitted 

the Response to Comments and 

Appendix J with the intent that they be 

considered part of the Idaho 2008 SIP 

revision request. The IDEQ further 

acknowledged that, upon the EPA’s 

approval of the Idaho 2008 SIP revision 

request, the 2008 SIP revision request 

will be federally enforceable. 

The EPA agrees that both the IDEQ’s 

Response to Comments and Appendix J 

are part of the 2008 SIP revision request, 

and, upon the EPA’s approval, will be 

part of the federally approved and 

federally enforceable Idaho SIP. Our 

approval of the 2008 SIP revision 

request relies upon the statements made 

by the IDEQ throughout the SIP 

revision, including those statements 

made in the IDEQ Response to 

Comments and Appendix J, regarding 

how the IDEQ intends to implement its 

crop residue burning program. This 

includes statements made by the IDEQ 

in its Response to Comments and 

Appendix J relating to the criteria for 

making burning decisions and how the 

IDEQ intends to implement those 

criteria. As part of our approval action, 

the EPA is including Idaho’s complete 

submitted 2008 SIP revision request, 

including the IDEQ’s Response to 

Comments and Appendix J, in the 

identification of plan section of the 

Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 

52.670. 

As we discussed in the proposal, the 

past ten years of air quality data show 

no monitored evidence that the burning 

of crop residue has led to a violation of 

the NAAQS. To the extent that the 

burning of crop residue may contribute 

to exceedances of the revised NAAQS 

for ozone and PM2.5, the provisions at 

IDAPA 58.01.01.617 through 623 of 

Idaho’s new crop residue burning 

program adequately address those 

concerns by preventing crop residue 

burning on days when a NAAQS 

exceedance may occur. In addition, the 

IDEQ provided supporting material, 

including the analysis of air quality, 

meteorology, emissions inventory, and 

non-regulatory modeling to show that 

the crop residue burning activity in the 

State of Idaho is not causing nor 

significantly contributing to a violation 

of the NAAQS. Based on the IDEQ’s SIP 

submission, including the IDEQ’s 

Response to Comments and Appendix J, 

and for the reasons discussed in our 

proposed approval notice, we conclude 

that our approval of the Idaho 2008 SIP 

revision request will not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

IV. Final Action 

For the reasons provided above and in 

our proposed rule, we are approving 

Idaho’s 2008 SIP revision request, 

including the revisions to allow the 

open burning of crop residue, and the 

provision addressing visible emissions. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44919 

2 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined under 18 U.S.C. 

1151 as: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the United 

States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of 

any patent, and including rights-of-way running 

through the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian 

communities within the borders of the United 

States, whether within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 

without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats 

as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the 

use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 

formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho, 

Indian country includes, but is not limited to, all 

lands within the exterior boundaries of the Coeur 

d’Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley Reservation, 

the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, the Fort Hall 

Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce Reservation 

as described in the 1863 Nez Perce Treaty. 

More specifically, we are approving the 

2008 SIP revision request relating to 

IDAPA 58.01.01.600–603, 606, 617–623, 

and 625 that includes both changes to 

the general open burning rules that were 

contained in the 2003 SIP revision 

request and changes to those rules that 

specifically relate to crop residue 

burning. We are also approving the 

portion of the 2003 SIP revision request 

relating to IDAPA 58.01.01.604, 607–

610, 612, 613, 615 and 616 that was not 

changed by the 2008 draft SIP revision 

request and that was not part of the 

federally approved Idaho SIP due to the 

Court’s remand and vacatur of our 2005 

SIP approval of the 2003 submission. 

We are approving the State’s submitted 

2008 revisions and the unchanged 2003 

submission provisions because they 

meet the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. 

As discussed in the proposal, because 

Idaho has not demonstrated authority to 

implement and enforce IDAPA Chapter 

58 within ‘‘Indian country’’ as defined 

in 18 U.S.C. 1151,2 this SIP approval 

does not extend to ‘‘Indian country’’ in 

Idaho. 73 FR 23162. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 16, 2008. 

Elin D. Miller, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart N—Idaho 

■ 2. Section 52.670 is amended to read 

as follows: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (c): 

■ i. By removing ‘‘[Idaho Administrative 

Procedures Act (IDAPA) Chapter 58, 

Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in 

Idaho Previously Codified at IDAPA 

Chapter 39 (Appendix A.3)]’’ from the 

table heading. 

■ ii. By removing the section heading 

‘‘58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air 

Pollution in Idaho’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘Idaho Administrative Procedures 

Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the 

Control of Air Pollution in Idaho’’. 

■ iii. By revising entries 600 through 

603. 

■ iv. By revising entries 606 through 

610. 

■ v. By revising entries 612 and 613. 

■ vi. By revising entries 615 though 617. 

■ vii. By adding in numerical order 

entries 618 though 623. 

■ viii. By revising entry 625. 

■ ix. By adding a section heading ‘‘State 

Statutes’’ and an entry for State Statutes 

‘‘Section 1 of House Bill 557, codified 

at Idaho Code section 39–114’’ at the 

end of the table. 

■ b. In paragraph (e) by adding an entry 

to the end of the table. 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
44920 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

* * * * * * * 

600 ............................. Rules for Control of Open Burning .... 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

601 ............................. Fire Permits, Hazardous Materials 

and Liability.

4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

602 ............................. Nonpreemption of Other Jurisdictions 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

603 ............................. General Restrictions ........................... 4/2/08, 

3/21/03, 

5/1/94 

8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

606 ............................. Categories of Allowable Burning ........ 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

607 ............................. Recreational and Warming Fires ....... 3/21/03 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

608 ............................. Weed Control Fires ............................ 5/1/94 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

609 ............................. Training Fires ..................................... 3/21/03 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

610 ............................. Industrial Flares .................................. 3/21/03 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

* * * * * * * 

612 ............................. Landfill Disposal Site Fires ................. 3/21/03 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

613 ............................. Orchard Fires ..................................... 3/21/03, 

5/1/94 

8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

* * * * * * * 

615 ............................. Dangerous Material Fires ................... 3/21/03 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

616 ............................. Infectious Waste Burning ................... 3/21/03 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Previous EPA Approval Date of 7/11/ 

05 removed in response to 9th Circuit remand. 

617 ............................. Crop Residue ..................................... 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

618 ............................. Permit By Rule ................................... 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

619 ............................. Registration for Permit By Rule ......... 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

620 ............................. Registration Fee ................................. 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

621 ............................. Burn Determination ............................ 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

622 ............................. General Provisions ............................. 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

623 ............................. Public Notification ............................... 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 149 / Friday, August 1, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 44921 

1The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and 

the preamble to the final rule promulgated 

September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further 

background and information on the OCS 

regulations. 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

625 ............................. Visible Emissions ............................... 4/2/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

* * * * * * * 

State Statutes 

Section 1 of House Bill 

557, codified at 

Idaho Code section 

39–114.

Open Burning of Crop Residue .......... 03/07/08 8/1/08 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES. 

Name of SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Open Burning of Crop Residue 

State Implementation Plan Revision.

State-wide ................................. 5/28/08 8/1/08 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–16973 Filed 7–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2007–0553; FRL–8688–3] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Update To Include New 

York State Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the update 

of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Air 

Regulations proposed in the Federal 

Register on March 14, 2008. 

Requirements applying to OCS sources 

located within 25 miles of States’

seaward boundaries must be 

promulgated into part 55 and updated 

periodically to remain consistent with 

the requirements of the corresponding 

onshore area (COA), as mandated by 

section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The portion of the OCS air 

regulations that is being updated 

pertains to the requirements for OCS 

sources in the State of New York. The 

intended effect of approving the OCS 

requirements for the State of New York 

is to regulate emissions from OCS 

sources in accordance with the 

requirements onshore. The requirements 

discussed below are incorporated by 

reference into the Code of Federal 

Regulations and are listed in the 

appendix to the OCS air regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on September 2, 2008. 

This incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of September 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R02–OAR–2007–0553. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, New York, New York 10007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Riva, Air Programs Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, 

New York 10007; telephone number: 

(212) 637–4074; e-mail address: 

riva.steven@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Public Comment and EPA Response 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Government 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

I. Background Information 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the U.S. 

EPA. 

On September 4, 1992, EPA 

promulgated 40 CFR part 55,1 which 

established requirements to control air 

pollution from OCS sources in order to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES